• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Nonbinding resolution against the Surge

JohnLocke

Regular Member
Sep 23, 2006
926
145
✟24,448.00
Country
United States
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Celibate
Politics
US-Libertarian
What do y'all think?

Is the proposed non binding resolution against the Iraq war troop surge:

1. Aid and comfort to the enemies of the Republic (otherwise known as treason in the Constitution)

2. A lot of sound and fury about essentially nothing

3. An attempt, more or less hopeful/idealistic, that a non-binding resolution will cause the President to alter his current war strategy without having to explore more "nuclear" options such as cutting off funding and potentially "stranding" military personnel in harms way without needed resources.

4. Politics as usual, that is to say, it is a tactic designed to encourage the chances of re-election by certain members of Congress.

5. Another example of how the Federal Government in general and Congress in particular wastes thousands and thousands of dollars to accomplish exactly nothing.

Cheers
 

ImmortalTechnique

Senior Veteran
May 10, 2005
5,534
410
40
✟22,770.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
if it is the only step, you're absolutely right. As a first step, and the only one that could be passed quickly, it was an important step to show that the President is acting alone in this action. Regardless of Bush's beliefs, we do still have seperate branches of government, and despite what we may think about it being "merely" symbolic- it is a profound thing for a President to persist in war without the support of the American people OR the Congress.
 
Upvote 0

variant

Happy Cat
Jun 14, 2005
23,790
6,591
✟315,332.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
What do y'all think?


1. Aid and comfort to the enemies of the Republic (otherwise known as treason in the Constitution)


No more than the presidents actions aid our enemies.

2. A lot of sound and fury about essentially nothing


That goes with the non-binding part.

This crocodile has no teeth, and I suppose it tries to kill stuff by gumming it to death.

3. An attempt, more or less hopeful/idealistic, that a non-binding resolution will cause the President to alter his current war strategy without having to explore more "nuclear" options such as cutting off funding and potentially "stranding" military personnel in harms way without needed resources.


He has already said no.

So, I doubt they think they can change his mind.

Or else they haven't been paying attention.

4. Politics as usual, that is to say, it is a tactic designed to encourage the chances of re-election by certain members of Congress.


Most of everything a congressperson does is try to get re-elected, either through sneaking legislation into bills to help their campaign contributors, to making token resistance to the president’s idiocy.

5. Another example of how the Federal Government in general and Congress in particular wastes thousands and thousands of dollars to accomplish exactly nothing.


Actually, I think the government is being counter productive to worry about non-binding resolutions. It really just shows how feckless the Congress has become.

Cut his funding and draw up the articles of impeachment if he sends troops into harms way without funding.
 
Upvote 0

JoshuaW

Senior Veteran
Aug 21, 2005
2,625
227
✟18,957.00
Faith
Christian
A word about "aid and comfort".

Here in America we enjoy freedom of speech, and no president or administration will change that no matter how much they would like to.

The administration believes that America should speak with one voice, so as not to encourage our enemies or discourage our troops. Consider the implications. That means that all Americans who disagree with administration policy should shut up and pretend to go along with the party line.

Why would the administration even discuss such an unrealistic limitation of free speech. Is this North Korea, where the Dear Leader is worshiped as a God?

The administration of an American government has no business trying to control the many opinions that arise in a democracy. That is the basis for our independence. If their policies require unanimous support, they are pursuing the wrong policies.
 
Upvote 0

MachZer0

Caught Between Barack and a Hard Place
Mar 9, 2005
61,058
2,302
✟94,109.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
What do y'all think?

Is the proposed non binding resolution against the Iraq war troop surge:

1. Aid and comfort to the enemies of the Republic (otherwise known as treason in the Constitution)

2. A lot of sound and fury about essentially nothing

3. An attempt, more or less hopeful/idealistic, that a non-binding resolution will cause the President to alter his current war strategy without having to explore more "nuclear" options such as cutting off funding and potentially "stranding" military personnel in harms way without needed resources.

4. Politics as usual, that is to say, it is a tactic designed to encourage the chances of re-election by certain members of Congress.

5. Another example of how the Federal Government in general and Congress in particular wastes thousands and thousands of dollars to accomplish exactly nothing.

Cheers
I think the commanders in Iraq should be allowed to answer that question

When Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), a strong supporter of the Bush administration’s strategy for Iraq, later asked Petraeus whether the resolutions of disapproval would encourage the enemies in Iraq, the officer said: “That’s correct.”
“This is a test of will,” he said, adding that as commander he would like “the enemy to feel that there is no hope.” He stressed, however, that he respects freedom of speech and the discussions taking place in Congress.
It's quite ironic that so many Democrats complained that Bush wasn't listening to the commanders, and now suddenly they are doing and supporting exactly the opposite of what those commanders want.
 
Upvote 0

MichaelFJF

Well-Known Member
Nov 13, 2002
8,264
811
Utah
✟12,597.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Republican
The democrats took over congress largely based on Iraq being an unpopular war. They knew they couldn't cut off funding. They knew they couldn't actually affect anything directly. So when they got into office, they all looked around at each other and said: "Jeez we gotta do something now that we're here." So they came up with a complete waste-of-time-and-money piece of legislation that allows them to thump their chests and show the folks back home that they disagree with Bush. The question they have to answer to those folks back home is: Now what? They better do something "binding" cuz '08 is coming at them like a locamotive and if they can't point to a pile of substantive successes, they'll be the minority again.
 
Upvote 0

Alarum

Well-Known Member
Nov 5, 2004
4,833
344
✟6,792.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Politics
US-Democrat
First step hopefully. If he continues not to listen, I say block his funding. Oh, and block all his retarded judge appointments. Why should Congress listen to the President if the President won't listen to congress? He wants a program? He can fund it with his dad's money.
 
Upvote 0

JoshuaW

Senior Veteran
Aug 21, 2005
2,625
227
✟18,957.00
Faith
Christian
I think it's a paper tiger at best.

.....

make that a paper kitty.
it's a shot across the bow, warning the administration that they are subverting the structure of American democracy.
If that doesn't work (and it doesn't seem to be having any effect) Congress will move beyond paper tigers.
 
Upvote 0

MichaelFJF

Well-Known Member
Nov 13, 2002
8,264
811
Utah
✟12,597.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Republican
it's a shot across the bow, warning the administration that they are subverting the structure of American democracy.
If that doesn't work (and it doesn't seem to be having any effect) Congress will move beyond paper tigers.

Uh huh - and what would be next? A non-binding resolution saying "You better stop that now?":doh:
 
Upvote 0

ImmortalTechnique

Senior Veteran
May 10, 2005
5,534
410
40
✟22,770.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
well, the binding resolutions are already going into motion. For instance,
Fact Sheet: The Iraq War De-escalation Act of 2007

Today, Senator Obama introduced the Iraq War De-escalation Act of 2007. The Iraq War De-escalation Act of 2007 is binding and comprehensive legislation that not only reverses the President's dangerous and ill-conceived escalation, but also sets a new course for U.S. policy in Iraq that can bring a responsible end to the war and bring our troops home. It implements - with the force of law - a phased redeployment of U.S. forces that remains our best leverage to pressure the Iraqi government to achieve the political solution necessary to promote stability. It also places conditions on future economic aid to the government of Iraq and calls for the United States to lead a broad and sustained diplomatic initiative within the region. This plan is based on Senator Obama's November 20th, 2006 speech before the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, and it implements key recommendations of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group.

The Obama plan offers a responsible yet effective alternative to the President's failed policy of escalation. Realizing there can be no military solution in Iraq, it focuses instead on reaching a political solution in Iraq, protecting our interests in the region, and bringing this war to a responsible end. The legislation commences redeployment of U.S. forces no later than May 1, 2007 with the goal of removing all combat brigades from Iraq by March 31, 2008, a date that is consistent with the expectation of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group. The plan allows for a limited number of U.S. troops to remain as basic force protection, to engage in counter-terrorism, and to continue the training of Iraqi security forces. If the Iraqis are successful in meeting the thirteen benchmarks for progress laid out by the Bush Administration, this plan also allows for the temporary suspension of the redeployment, provided Congress agrees that the benchmarks have been met and that the suspension is in the national security interest of the United States.

In short, the Obama plan halts the escalation and requires a responsible, phased redeployment of American forces from Iraq in a manner that protects U.S. troops and exerts leverage to achieve the political settlement among the Iraqis.


Key Elements of Obama Plan


Stops the Escalation: Caps the number of U.S. troops in Iraq at the number in Iraq on January 10, 2007. This does not affect the funding for our troops in Iraq. This cap has the force of law and could not be lifted without explicit Congressional authorization.

De-escalates the War with Phased Redeployment: Commences a phased redeployment of U.S. troops out of Iraq not later than May 1, 2007, with the goal that all combat brigades redeploy from Iraq by March 31, 2008, a date consistent with the expectation of the Iraq Study Group. This redeployment will be both substantial and gradual, and will be planned and implemented by military commanders. Makes clear that Congress believes troops should be redeployed to the United States; to Afghanistan; and to other points in the region. A residual U.S. presence may remain in Iraq for force protection, training of Iraqi security forces, and pursuit of international terrorists.

Enforces Tough Benchmarks for Progress: These 13 benchmarks are based on President Bush's own statements and Administration documents and include:

Security: Significant progress toward fulfilling security commitments, including eliminating restrictions on U.S. forces, reducing sectarian violence, reducing the size and influence of the militias, and strengthening the Iraqi Army and Police.

Political Accommodation: Significant progress toward reaching a political solution, including equitable sharing of oil revenues, revision of de-Baathification, provincial elections, even-handed provision of government services, and a fair process for a constitutional amendment to achieve national reconciliation.

Economic Progress: Requires Iraq to fulfill its commitment to spend not less than $10 billion for reconstruction, job creation, and economic development without regard for the ethnic or sectarian make-up of Iraqi regions.


Should these benchmarks be met, the plan allows for the temporary suspension of this redeployment, subject to the agreement of Congress.


Congressional oversight: Requires the President to submit reports to Congress every 90 days describing and assessing the Iraqi government's progress in meeting benchmarks and the redeployment goals.

Intensified Training: Intensifies training of Iraqi security forces to enable the country to take over security responsibility of the country.

Conditions on Economic Assistance: Conditions future economic assistance to the Government of Iraq on significant progress toward achievement of benchmarks. Allows exceptions for humanitarian, security, and job-creation assistance.

Regional Diplomacy: Launches a comprehensive regional and international diplomatic initiative - that includes key nations in the region - to help achieve a political settlement among the Iraqi people, end the civil war in Iraq, and prevent a humanitarian catastrophe and regional conflict. Recommends the President should appoint a Special Envoy for Iraq to carry out this diplomacy within 60 days. Mandates that the President submit a plan to prevent the war in Iraq from becoming a wider regional conflict.
 
Upvote 0

MachZer0

Caught Between Barack and a Hard Place
Mar 9, 2005
61,058
2,302
✟94,109.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
well, the binding resolutions are already going into motion. For instance,
Fact Sheet: The Iraq War De-escalation Act of 2007

Today, Senator Obama introduced the Iraq War De-escalation Act of 2007. The Iraq War De-escalation Act of 2007 is binding and comprehensive legislation that not only reverses the President's dangerous and ill-conceived escalation, but also sets a new course for U.S. policy in Iraq that can bring a responsible end to the war and bring our troops home. It implements - with the force of law - a phased redeployment of U.S. forces that remains our best leverage to pressure the Iraqi government to achieve the political solution necessary to promote stability. It also places conditions on future economic aid to the government of Iraq and calls for the United States to lead a broad and sustained diplomatic initiative within the region. This plan is based on Senator Obama's November 20th, 2006 speech before the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, and it implements key recommendations of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group.

The Obama plan offers a responsible yet effective alternative to the President's failed policy of escalation. Realizing there can be no military solution in Iraq, it focuses instead on reaching a political solution in Iraq, protecting our interests in the region, and bringing this war to a responsible end. The legislation commences redeployment of U.S. forces no later than May 1, 2007 with the goal of removing all combat brigades from Iraq by March 31, 2008, a date that is consistent with the expectation of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group. The plan allows for a limited number of U.S. troops to remain as basic force protection, to engage in counter-terrorism, and to continue the training of Iraqi security forces. If the Iraqis are successful in meeting the thirteen benchmarks for progress laid out by the Bush Administration, this plan also allows for the temporary suspension of the redeployment, provided Congress agrees that the benchmarks have been met and that the suspension is in the national security interest of the United States.

In short, the Obama plan halts the escalation and requires a responsible, phased redeployment of American forces from Iraq in a manner that protects U.S. troops and exerts leverage to achieve the political settlement among the Iraqis.


Key Elements of Obama Plan


Stops the Escalation: Caps the number of U.S. troops in Iraq at the number in Iraq on January 10, 2007. This does not affect the funding for our troops in Iraq. This cap has the force of law and could not be lifted without explicit Congressional authorization.

De-escalates the War with Phased Redeployment: Commences a phased redeployment of U.S. troops out of Iraq not later than May 1, 2007, with the goal that all combat brigades redeploy from Iraq by March 31, 2008, a date consistent with the expectation of the Iraq Study Group. This redeployment will be both substantial and gradual, and will be planned and implemented by military commanders. Makes clear that Congress believes troops should be redeployed to the United States; to Afghanistan; and to other points in the region. A residual U.S. presence may remain in Iraq for force protection, training of Iraqi security forces, and pursuit of international terrorists.

Enforces Tough Benchmarks for Progress: These 13 benchmarks are based on President Bush's own statements and Administration documents and include:

Security: Significant progress toward fulfilling security commitments, including eliminating restrictions on U.S. forces, reducing sectarian violence, reducing the size and influence of the militias, and strengthening the Iraqi Army and Police.

Political Accommodation: Significant progress toward reaching a political solution, including equitable sharing of oil revenues, revision of de-Baathification, provincial elections, even-handed provision of government services, and a fair process for a constitutional amendment to achieve national reconciliation.

Economic Progress: Requires Iraq to fulfill its commitment to spend not less than $10 billion for reconstruction, job creation, and economic development without regard for the ethnic or sectarian make-up of Iraqi regions.


Should these benchmarks be met, the plan allows for the temporary suspension of this redeployment, subject to the agreement of Congress.


Congressional oversight: Requires the President to submit reports to Congress every 90 days describing and assessing the Iraqi government's progress in meeting benchmarks and the redeployment goals.

Intensified Training: Intensifies training of Iraqi security forces to enable the country to take over security responsibility of the country.

Conditions on Economic Assistance: Conditions future economic assistance to the Government of Iraq on significant progress toward achievement of benchmarks. Allows exceptions for humanitarian, security, and job-creation assistance.

Regional Diplomacy: Launches a comprehensive regional and international diplomatic initiative - that includes key nations in the region - to help achieve a political settlement among the Iraqi people, end the civil war in Iraq, and prevent a humanitarian catastrophe and regional conflict. Recommends the President should appoint a Special Envoy for Iraq to carry out this diplomacy within 60 days. Mandates that the President submit a plan to prevent the war in Iraq from becoming a wider regional conflict.
Good luck on overriding a veto
 
Upvote 0

ImmortalTechnique

Senior Veteran
May 10, 2005
5,534
410
40
✟22,770.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Good luck on overriding a veto

1. I think you might be surprised on that

2. If Bush refuses to do what it takes to achieve victory in Iraq, it will be on his shoulders. The Congress can only do what they feel is best. If Bush wants to continually subvert the will of the people and the best interests of the Iraqis, he and his party are certainly free to pay the moral and political price for such actions.
 
Upvote 0

JoshuaW

Senior Veteran
Aug 21, 2005
2,625
227
✟18,957.00
Faith
Christian
Impeachment is the best thing that the Democrats could do if they want to lose any shot at the White House in '08.
I don't follow your logic. Do you believe a majority of the American people support the administration of George Bush and approve of his attempts to create an Imperial Presidency? Do you disagree that his actions constitute a challenge to American democracy which demands a response?
 
Upvote 0